Murder Flashcards
What did Lord Coke define murder as?
the unlawful killing of a reasonable creature under the King’s peace with malice aforethought (express or implied)
Murder is governed in which act?
the Homicide Act 1957
What kind of sentence does murder hold?
mandatory life sentence.
What is the AR for murder
unlawful killing of a reasonable creature under the king’s peace.
First stage of the AR for murder and meaning ?
The killing must be unlawful meaning it is done without any legal justification
Examples of lawful killing?
Self defence , doctor patient (turning of life support)
Murder requires what kind of act and what is an exception from this act?
Murder requires a voluntary act, however it can happen through an omission as seen in Gibbins v Proctor
Second stage of the AR for murder and meaning ?
reasonable creature which means a human being.
.
What is not classed as a reasonable human being and the case?
A foetus is not a human being as illustrated in AG Ref No3.
Although a person on life support is reasonable human being when the machine is turned off it does not?case
is not murder or a break in the chain of causation as illustrated in Malcherek and Steel.
Final element of the AR and meaning?
under the King’s peace, this means that those involved in war or battle will not be charged with murder, however killing a prisoner of war can amount to murder.
Murder is what type of crime ?and what does that mean
result crime therefore we must establish that the D caused the killing of the V, and therefore the rules of causation must be discussed
Causation(both)?
Factual causation uses the ‘but for’ test as illustrated in R v White/Pagett.
Legal causation means that the D’s actions are a substantial cause of the V’s injuries. R v Kimsey held that the D must be more than a minimal cause but does not need to be the total cause.
.
Any intervening acts can be applied if relevant what are they include cases? There 5
- Victim’s Own Act
• R v Roberts❌ (1971) did not break chain of causation - Acts of a Third Party
• R v Pagett (1983)❌ did not break the chain of causation as 3rd parties acts were reasonably foreseeable - Medical Negligence
• R v Jordan (1956)✅ broke the chain of causation palpably wrong - Contributory Negligence❌
• Even if other factors contribute to the harm, the defendant remains liable if their actions were the main cause of the consequence. - Thin Skull Rule❌
• R v Blaue (1975) take their victim as they find them, meaning any pre-existing conditions or personal beliefs that worsen the harm do not break the chain.
What is the Mr for murder
The MR for murder is malice aforethought, express or implied.
What is express malice aforethought and what case?
is the intention to kill as in R v Vickers
What is implied malice aforethought and cases?
the intention to cause GBH. This can be either direct intention as in Mohan where the D desires a specific outcome, or indirect intention as in Woollin where death was a virtual certainty as a result of the D’s actions
You can talk about transferred malice if relevant what is it? And what case
When the defendant intends to harm one person but unintentionally harms another, the intent is transferred to the actual victim. R v Gnango
What is the legal principle in Thabo Meli (1954)?
A series of linked acts can be treated as one continuing act so that the mens rea applies throughout, ensuring guilt.
What is the principle of contemporaneity?
The actus reus (AR) and mens rea (MR) must coincide, but courts can use the continuing act or single transaction principle to establish liability.
